14 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I get what you're saying, to a point. Trust but verify. But I mean...do you believe USAF mishap data? The DoD and USAF are part of the executive branch just like the EIA. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the EIA data.

And as soon as USAF mishap data can be manipulated to support/attack some national policy, watch it become not so sacrosanct.

There is absolutely no reason to blindly believe the EIA data either.  Press on with your argument by all means, but your data sources aren't any better than ones that refute your position.

It's the judgement needed to sift through the different data sets that's the point.

The problem with solar and wind is one of time.  Their peak production is not aligned with peak demand.  There's also a square foot of land for production vs. population density problem if the suburban NIMBYs ever lose their fight.  Although I suppose we could just turn the desert southwest into a giant solar farm and storage facility.

The problem then is that the entire production system needs to be very oversized (expensive) or a storage system is needed.  All the current storage technologies are not really suitable (huge and expensive), at least for now.

The other option is dispatchable energy sources, natural gas currently plays that role in Texas.  They ran into some issues with the big freeze, but that was mainly a system design problem not a fundamental problem with their concept.  They use a lot of renewable energy.

In the longer term, less reliance on oil/fossil for energy is a good thing for multiple reasons.  Nuclear power production technology has been stagnant for a long time, and I'd be fine with some R&D grants/competitions/etc to get the technology caught up.  

nuclear good idea fairies:

Fusion: obvious, but also may be a pipe dream

Recycling reactors: something like 80% of the energy is still in spent fuel from legacy reactors, France does re-refine the spent fuel to reuse.  Negative: produces plutonium as a by-product.

New design fission reactors: goal of reducing proliferation concerns, improving safety

Ramp-able reactors: current reactors can't ramp up and down quickly, and are only designed to completely shut down a limited number of times in their lifetime.  Not sure if this is a pipe dream too.

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/us/live-news/nuclear-fusion-reaction-us-announcement-12-13-22/index.html
 

First ever successful fusion reaction that produced more energy than it took to make it. Game changing event.

55 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/us/live-news/nuclear-fusion-reaction-us-announcement-12-13-22/index.html
 

First ever successful fusion reaction that produced more energy than it took to make it. Game changing event.

For certain!  In the meantime, let’s continue to capitalize on our progress here while sticking with what we have technology for currently (looking at you New Zealand, Holland, and CA). Maybe not banning gas powered farm equipment before we have a realistic alternative. As much fun as this recent inflation has been, I’m thinking farming via horse drawn plows and hand picking is going to lead to a few more shortages. 

For certain!  In the meantime, let’s continue to capitalize on our progress here while sticking with what we have technology for currently (looking at you New Zealand, Holland, and CA). Maybe not banning gas powered farm equipment before we have a realistic alternative. As much fun as this recent inflation has been, I’m thinking farming via horse drawn plows and hand picking is going to lead to a few more shortages. 

Don’t forget any and all commercial freight haulers in the state of California…

That really ought to help the supply chain issues if we can’t truck from port to place of use/sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk